A Readingista Reviews Sportista

Today a book review I wrote of the new book Sportista: Female Fandom in the United States, appeared on The Rumpus. This may or may not mean I am the next Cheryl Strayed... This summer my husband and I had Olympics fever. We watched NBC’s tape-delayed broadcast every night and live online coverage of our favorite sports (gymnastics for me, track and field for him) during the day. But our viewing habits diverged in one significant way: he likes to fast-forward through all the fluff.  What’s “fluff?” It’s the pre-recorded and packaged segments about an athlete’s training or family history designed to tug at the heartstrings. I like knowing about who to root for and the athletes’ stories matter to me.

According to Andrei Markovits, professor of comparative politics and German studies at the University of Michigan, and Emily Albertson, my love of fluff and my husband’s disdain for it is not at all surprising. In their new book, Sportista: Female Fandom in the United States, Markovits and Albertson examine the development of female sports fans since the passage of Title IX 40 years ago. Just as we have more successful female athletes than ever before—60% of the American Olympic medal haul, and two-thirds of the golds, were won by women—we also have more Sportistas than ever.

Sportistas differ from their male counterparts in terms of numbers and substance. (And, no, it’s not that they watch sports just to spend time with their husbands, as a recent study by two Communications professors reportedly found.) Markovits and Albertson present evidence that one of the ways male and female sports fans differ is that starting in childhood girls are more likely to focus on narratives than boys, which continues into adulthood. Hence, I like fluff and my husband doesn’t, affecting the type of sports coverage I prefer.

Despite the fact that I regularly write about women and sports, Markovits and Albertson would not regard me as a Sportista because I don’t religiously follow and have expert knowledge about what they label “hegemonic sports”—the Big Four of baseball, basketball, football, and hockey. So Sportistas like Albertson almost always focus on male sports and on sports that offer very few professional opportunities for female athletes. Albertson knows her sports history and has even been accepted into the fraternity of University of Michigan undergraduate football fans, despite never playing football herself. According to Markovits the purpose of Sportista is to explain how a young female like Albertson becomes credentialed as a Sportista in the 21st century.

CLICK HERE TO KEEP READING!

Fun fact alert! Toward the end of the review I write:

Despite sports generally being less important in female peer groups, some women do become serious sports consumers—they become sports journalists. In their discussion and analysis of female sports journalists Markovits and Albertson are at their best. They discuss the differences among women who report sports, women who analyze sports, and women who cover sports for print and radio and those who do so on television. They explain that while numerous studies have found that attractiveness helps build credibility in spheres like politics and business, for female sports reporters attractiveness is actually a liability. The earliest female sports reporters were known for their beauty and not for their knowledge (one was actually Miss America), a criticism that haunts female sports journalists to this day. Today some women create a niche for themselves by covering sports that aren’t part of the Big Four as a way to overcome the numerous barriers to entry, promotion, and credibility that a professional Sportista must face.

My mother actually crowned that Miss America I mention, Phyllis George Miss America 1971. Small worlds collide, huh?

Shrinking and Pinking: Athletics in a Post-Post Title IX World

The XX(X) Olympics were an enormous success for women-- especially the Americans.  If the US women had been their own country they would have placed fifth in the medal count standings.  Even more noteworthy is that 60% of the all the US' medals came from women and 2/3rds of the American gold medal haul were won by the females on Team USA. Of course a year from now we're not very likely to care as much about our amazing female athletes.  As this piece from Fortune explains, female athletes are hot commodities every four years, but in between even the professional basketball players suffer.  According to the author a lot of this has to do with the fact that marketers aren't quite sure what to do with non-traditional female bodies, which helps explain why Gabby Douglas and the Fierce Five are doing so well. (Side note: My favorite tidbit from this article is that the first sports bra was made in 1977 by a grad student sewing two jock straps together!)

While I completely understand why we need to focus on developing women in sports (it's striking that today, for the first time ever, two women were invited to join Augusta National Golf Club), I also found it somewhat disturbing that in the Olympics there are now only two sports where only one sex participates-- synchronized swimming and rhythmic gymnastics.  In both cases these are female-only sports.  Now if men did not want to participate at the highest levels that would be one thing, but the fact is that there are male synchronized swimmers and they aren't allowed to compete at the highest levels (per documentaries like Sync of Swim, which I reviewed last fall).  Men also participate in rhythmic gymnastics, though with a more martial arts-like focus it sounds different enough to be less of a concern.  If these last two sports were male only I am sure we would see more of an outcry that the female sex was excluded.

Sure, the numbers in sports like synchro and gymnastics in general skew female.  That is also true for a sport like football, though in this case men dominate.  This year for the first time ever a female, Shannon Eastin, refereed an NFL game.  Perhaps in sports where the numbers are so lopsided the way for the opposite to really participate is through officiating and judging, or perhaps coaching (if you watched women's artistic gymnastics you know that the head coach of the Team USA and most of the athletes' primary coaches are male)?  I'm not sure this is a fair trade-off for those who want to compete themselves but in cases where parity isn't possible due to numbers perhaps this is a way to include both sexes.

I understand that most "serious" Olympic sports fans think synchro and rhythmic should be excluded anyway (despite this wonderful New York Times article on how athletic synchronized swimming really is), perhaps because they are so feminine and competitively marked as such due to the subjective nature of judging, but does it both anyone else that the fact men are excluded isn't given the same amount as concern as when women are excluded?

How will the Olympics inspire girls? (from the Gates Cambridge blog, a program that has inspired me)

This blog originally appeared on the Gates Cambridge blog, A Transformative Experience, on July 29, 2012. I was a Gates Cambridge scholar at the University of Cambridge from 2002-2003. It truly was one of the most transformative experiences of my life from a personal and professional point of view. For many years after my time in the UK I was honored and humbled to serve the Gates Cambridge community in different ways (as a member, and later as a co-chair, of the Alumni Association and as a member of the selection committee for US Scholars). Unlike many other fellowships the Gates Cambridge is very inclusive (citizens of every country except the UK can apply, no age limits, no institutional endorsement needed, any graduate degree Cambridge offers eligible, etc.) and scholars go on to pursue different types of research and professions, as the blog suggests. In some ways the Gates Cambridge spirit is similar to the Olympic spirit with its international style, emphasis on achievement, and attraction for those striving to make the world a better place.

The London Olympics are upon us and they are shaping up to be quite extraordinary from the standpoint of advancing women’s athletics.  For instance this will be the first Olympic Games in which every Olympic nation is represented by a female competitor; it’s also the first time that women will compete in every Olympic sport.

As a cultural sociologist and writer who focuses on childhood and athletics among other topics, I believe in the power of sport to effect social change.  I also know that sports are a way to shape the next generation by teaching children lessons about competition and life.  But those lessons are often shaped by gender and class.

In my academic work I find that many parents, especially those from the upper-middle class, realize how important it is for girls to play competitive sports. Why? Parents perceive that there are numerous long-term benefits in terms of adult professional achievement.

What might these benefits be? I’ll highlight three here, but soon you will be able to read a whole chapter on this topic in my book, Playing to Win: Raising Children in a Competitive Culture. (Note: As part of this research I interviewed parents from 95 families with primary school-age kids involved in chess, dance, and soccer. I was especially interested in understanding how parents of girls chose between the two physical activities [dance and soccer] for their daughters.)

1) Learning how to be part of a team- The team element of competitive youth sports was especially important to many parents I met.  Here’s an illustrative quote from one Ivy-League educated soccer (American football) mom:

We have no illusions that our children are going to be great athletes. But the team element (is important). I worked for Morgan Stanley for 10 years, and I interviewed applicants, and that ability to work on a team was a crucial part of our hiring process. So it’s a skill that comes into play much later. It’s not just about ball skills or hand-eye coordination.

2) Learning how to strive to win, be the best, and be aggressive- This same mother went on to explain why she thought ice hockey was such a good choice for her daughter. Her daughter actually played two travel sports– soccer and ice hockey.  Her comments also highlight what additional skills children acquire when they make the jump from recreational participation in team sports to competitive youth sports where the emphasis on winning and being aggressive becomes amplified.

When I was interviewing [job candidates] at Morgan Stanley, if I got a female candidate—because it’s banking and you need to be aggressive, you need to be tough—if she played, like, ice hockey, done. My daughter’s playing, and I’m just a big believer in kids learning to be confidently aggressive, and I think that plays out in life assertiveness.

3) Learning to use sports to connect across social boundaries (like sex and class)- You may notice that this mother is a professional who is highly credentialed.  This was true of many of the soccer parents  that I interviewed.  We can think of them as part of the American upper-middle class.  Sports are quite important in American upper-middle class culture because athletics celebrate and promote many of the values that are valued in professional work environments. In the past these values (like learning to win, for example) applied more to men than women.  But today parents expect the same sort of achievement from their sons and daughters, and see sports as a way to teach this lesson to their daughters.  They seem to be on the right track. Recent economic research has found that participation in sports while in secondary school increases the likelihood that a girl attends university, enters the labor market, and enters previously male-dominated occupations.

These classed lessons in femininity are an unexplored way in which gender and class reproduction occurs, beginning in childhood.  While we root for athletes from our home nations, and those whose stories resonate with us, during this Summer Olympics it’s important to understand the various social forces that shape these athletes’ past and future achievements, and those who they inspire.

Shrinking and Pinking: The XX(X) Olympiad Edition

It's finally here! This week the Summer Games begin.  I-- and my DVR-- are ready. While some are calling them the Title IX Olympics, I prefer  the XX(X) Olympics.  Sure it's the first time that women (269) outnumber men (261) on the US team (hence the "Title IX" moniker [and it helps that this is the 40th anniversary of the passage of Title IX]), but that just addresses the US. A lot has been happening internationally as well.

After some back-and-forth it's the first time that every Olympic nation will be represented by a woman at the Games (though I'd be remiss not to mention that one of the Saudi Arabian women grew up in the US and likely wouldn't have had the same opportunities to develop in sport if she had grown up in Saudi Arabia; though Khadija Mohammed, a 17-year-old from the UAE, did grow up in the Persian Gulf and will be the first female to represent her country in the Olympics and the first Persian Gulf woman to lift at the Olympics).

Since the 1908 London Games women's participation has risen from 1.8% to 9.5% in London 1948 to over 40% at this London Games.  It's also the first time that women will compete in every sport (thanks to the inclusion of female boxing).

Not only are there more female athletes but women are making strides in other aspects of the Games.  This year for the first time ever Russia will have a female flag-bearer in this Friday's Opening Ceremonies (tennis superstar Maria Sharapova). Female coaches are also making strides.  I find it somewhat odd that the USA women's swim team has a female head coach for the first time, but it's true.

Is there more work to be done when it comes to athletic equality between men and women? Of course. Case in point? Last week there was outrage after the Japanese women's soccer team (who is better than the men's team) was flown to the Games in economy while the men enjoyed business class. Same thing for the Australian basketball teams (imagine how hard that would be with long legs!).

Still, I plan to spend the XX(X) Games celebrating amazing strength and stories of triumph.  As a woman who was recently pregnant I'm in awe of Nur Suryani Mohd Taibi, a Malaysian rifle shooter who is competing while seven months pregnant.  As a new mom I'm so impressed by high jumper Amy Acuff.  Not only is this her fifth Olympics, but she has a young daughter and she coaches herself. Not everyone can win the Gold, or even a medal, but they can inspire and impress people around the world just by competing.

Later this week I plan to write about my favorite summer Olympics sport: gymnastics. Stay tuned and get your TV set for some inspirational performances starting this weekend!

Shrinking and Pinking: Any Age, Any Size, Any Sport

So much is happening in the world of sports with the lead-up to the Summer Olympics-- and female athletes have been stealing the spotlight, especially in track (so much has been written on the 100m controversy, but I have to endorse this Sports Illustrated article by Tim Layden as the absolute best I have read on the topic). It's only right that women sports stars are getting so much attention as we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the passage of Title IX.  And it's not just that they generate their own headlines in the sports pages these days that matters.  What's most important is that thanks to Title IX women achieve more in the classroom and in the boardroom (I've written about Betsey Stevenson's study before here, which includes a link to her interesting paper).

These three athletes who have recently created headlines are a reminder that today women of any age and size can achieve in any sport.

1) Swimming legend Janet Evans is 40 and a mom of two. She also just competed in the Olympic Trials in distance swimming. I know she may not feel like it all the time, but it seems like she has it all.

2) Holley Mangold (in her second appearance in the Shrinking and Pinking series) was just profiled in The New York Times Magazine. Yes, she's 350 pounds. Yes, she wears make-up. Yes, she's NFL star Nick's sister. No, she doesn't want to be skinny. No, she doesn't make a lot of money. No, she probably won't medal in London (US weightlifting is described as the equivalent of the US' Jamaican bobsled team). I'll still be rooting for her and hoping she rocks some hair bows and nail polish, flaunting her awesome skill and femininity.

3) Nineteen-year-old Maggie Parker participates in a sport that isn't even in the Olympics. She's a bull rider. And earlier this month she became the first woman to ever win prize money on the professional bull-riding circuit.  It was only $460 but you have to start somewhere.

I doubt Parker'll be doing this when she's 40, like Evans, and she's surely about a third the size of Mangold, but all three women prove that in a post-Title IX world female athletes come in variety of wonderful packages.